Getting a new job isn't going to solve the problem. As long as most employers are unwilling to pay employees what they're worth we're going to need unions. Organized labor is the counter to business lobbyists. It's because of them that you only have to work 40 hours a week, have week ends off and aren't required to work in unnecessarily dangerous conditions.
I realize that it's really popular around here to claim that if you're not being well treated that you can just quit. But it doesn't work that way. You have to be able to find another job because unemployment benefits rarely if ever are granted to employees that quit just because they're being abused by the company. It's a tough shit situation which most people can't afford to do.
But then again, I'm sure it's their fault for not having been born rich and that you're just such a hard worker that you've earned everything you've got. Including the good luck not to get seriously ill.
Which will happen eventually, the lulz from such an endeavor is just way too great for all trolls throughout the entire world to resist. It's pretty much a given that at least one will do so. And probably enough to make the site pointless.
This strikes me as something better solved on the client end than on the internet end. If somebody feels that strongly about it, they shouldn't be depending upon Google or somebody else to know what's appropriate for their children. I get that it's time consuming to constantly baby sit kids, but you don't have to. When I was a kid, we were turned loose with a bunch of other kids and that handled much of the time. Society hasn't gotten any more dangerous in the last 30 years, despite the opinions that some folks have, and the reality is that kids are probably safer roving the parks in packs than hanging out with adult friends and loved ones anyways.
But, if you really want to do it right, you're stuck with a filter that defaults to deny and uses an internal DNS cache to resolve things, blocking any efforts to type IP addresses directly. And where the parent manually adds sites to the list. Even that's not fool proof, but it's probably about as fool proof as being physically present whilst they surf.
The books are still DRM encumbered, that's the part that the publishers care about. It's not going to be a problem unless a huge portion of the Nook owning public are no longer able to use the DRM files without cracking them.
The main reason why they aren't using E-ink for the color screens is that the technology isn't there yet. I'm not sure if you remember the original Gameboy Color, but the color was really bad compared with the Gameboy Advanced which took its place. It's unlikely that LCD screens will ever be as efficient as E-Ink is.
This, I considered getting a Kindle when I got my Nook. The hardware in both cases is quite good, the screens are manufactured by the same company and most areas are more or less identical. The two things that pushed me over to Nook were epub support and the microSD slot. Well, that and I can change the battery without much hassle.
I suspect that what's going on here is that B&N makes a small profit on each Nook it sells. And it would be somewhat anathema to release an ebook reader that's not tied to a specific store and then lock the thing down from such hacks. The only thing I can think of them wanting to protect is the cell connection, and even that isn't a big deal because if you use it to access sites other than their store, they just bill you for the overage.
It's hard to really say, but this is probably part of their, "we're not evil like Amazon" thing they're doing.
I doubt that B&N cares one way or the other about people hacking their hardware. Considering that Nooks aren't locked into their store specifically, I have to assume that they make at least some profit off the sale of Nooks, even if the profit is minimal.
Which has precisely what to do with the accusation that the US is arming and funding the narcomafia? His point failed miserably because he's wrong and hasn't been able to substantiate that in this case we're funding or arming the narcomafia.
Considering that you didn't read any of those links, I think it's somewhat ironic that you're calling me an idiot.
The first 3 are about past actions, which have no relevant connection to your claims. The last one is ongoing, but it has no connection to your claim that the US government is funding or arming the narcomafia.
I used to buy into that fairytale as well, but it's not true. There is no correlation between inflation and economic health beyond the number being relatively stable. Modest inflation or deflation is a tolerable evil, but one is not better than the other and certainly neither is more desirable than being rid of both completely. You're not going to do that with a fiat currency ever, a fiat currency will tend towards a small amount of inflation.
Inflation itself has been the means of stealing from the poor to give to the rich. In the US we've had insufferably low interest rates on the types of accounts that the poor can afford to have, whereas we've had insufferably low taxes on capital gains for the rich. Leading to a perverse situation where the banks are taking the money from the poor and paying it out as dividends and capital gains to the rich.
If you really want to encourage investment or savings in savings accounts over currency hoarding, then there are better ways to do that. Such as preventing the federal reserve from giving low interest loans during boom times. People are going to spend when interest rates are lower than inflation and they haven't got enough money to properly invest. I'm not sure what other result one would expect. If you want interest rates to be low, then you pretty much have to eliminate inflation, and possibly even start destroying currency to bring yourself into a situation where that interest rate is somewhat higher than inflation.
Which it won't. The main purposes of Bitcoins at the moment are scamming and money laundering. I'd be surprised if there weren't already a few governments investigating the legality of the whole thing as I type. Especially given the utility it has in buying illegal goods and or services.
It's because nobody is that old, the original ones being issued near the end of the 18th century. So, unless you're very long lived, the actual loss of purchasing power over that period isn't a big deal. Up until relatively recently wages would go up by a similar figure, and typically somewhat more than inflation as increases to productivity would take effect. The dollar itself is just a place holder, the only reason to care about inflation at all is if you're the type of person that's in the position to hold onto dollars.
The bigger problem lately has been the inflation created to cut no interest loans to corporations that are then subsidized to create jobs over seas via IRS loopholes. Inflation or deflation of a currency, what matters a lot more is whether the ecomony is growing, shrinking or remaining relatively static. You can create an inflationary or deflationary period trivially by printing or destroying currency in massive quantities.
To varying degrees. US currency is legal tender for all debts public and private, well within the US, so as long as you have the bills to pay the debt they have to accept it no matter what the ultimate outcome might be, even if they would make more money requiring a different form of payment. But, you can still see massive inflation when the Fed decides that the rich aren't rich enough and starts printing money to give the rich interest free loans.
You don't think that they can get their hands on run flat tires? Sure they're hardly prefect, but they do pretty well in terms of coping with that situation.
No, the problem is that people are willing to pay and look the other way when it comes to the consequences. Ending prohibition set a really bad precedent in that it gave people the idea that if they refuse to obey the law that they can get it over turned. Now that wasn't such a bad thing when it came to human rights, but alcohol is still a very serious social problem, killing and hurting more than pretty much anything else. But, it's going to be legalized perpetually because people are more OK giving their money to the mob than giving up the hooch.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp that there are people out there that don't give a damn what their drug habit is doing to the people in Mexico. What's difficult to grasp is that if we bow to the pressure that things will be OK and that they won't start demanding other anti-social things. There's a reason why the constitution doesn't include the right to do whatever drug you might want to do.
A large part of it is the continued turf war as the Mexican government makes progress in various areas. The Mexican government hasn't been able to make enough head way to keep it that way, but they have managed to do well enough that the gangs are fighting amongst themselves as they lose, usually temporarily, some portion of their turf.
The James bond gear is primarily for use against each other though.
This is similar to what Columbia went through when they were cleaning themselves up after years of being owned by the narcomafia. And ultimately, Mexico is primarily about smuggling routes, in order to fix it they'll also have to ensure that there's little demand to move things through the country. I can definitely envision the traffickers bypassing them mostly to go via sea in those subs.
Your tinfoil hat must be cutting off circulation to your head. The government wasn't smuggling guns for the cartels, they were engaged in a sting. A poorly conceived of and executed sting, but a sting no less. It's just plain dishonest to suggest that the US is funding and arming them.
Yes, they are making most of their money here and they are using that money to pay people to buy them weapons, but you make it sound like there's some sort of conspiracy going on. Whereas what's really going on is typical of organized crime and requires no additional paranoia to explain.
Apple manufacturers very little themselves, they contract out to folks like Foxconn for the actual manufacturing. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with contracting out the actual manufacturing, I just think that it's important to keep in mind that the contractors hardly work just for Apple.
The problem I have with Thunderbird is the frequent freezing of scripts. It's good for them to work on cutting down the RAM consumption, but I do think it's a good idea to keep in mind the context in which this is all taking place.
This is a much bigger problem in my experience. I know that they are working on that, but it seems to be taking ages. I do appreciate the effort that's going into the tab isolation, but until they do that, this sort of problem is going to persist.
Firefox doesn't have a memory leak. Or at least none of any note. I'm curious how you're managing to use 2.1gb of RAM, I have yet to see my copy on Windows, Linux or FreeBSD manage that. I rarely if ever see the browser use more than 300MB.
It definitely could happen, but I'd want some indication that it's the browser itself and not the typical assortment of plug ins.
Are they though? I keep hearing anecdotally that people are switching in droves from Firefox to Chrome, but considering most of it is due to things like memory use and speed, I can't help but think that the numbers are exaggerated. For one thing Firefox has been using less RAM than the competition for quite some time now. And for another thing, Firefox, unlike many of the competitors, chrome I'm looking at you, is actually a full featured browser which is relatively stable. There's not a lot of cruft being added, I can't say the same for some of the more minimalist browsers out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting a new job isn't going to solve the problem. As long as most employers are unwilling to pay employees what they're worth we're going to need unions. Organized labor is the counter to business lobbyists. It's because of them that you only have to work 40 hours a week, have week ends off and aren't required to work in unnecessarily dangerous conditions.
I realize that it's really popular around here to claim that if you're not being well treated that you can just quit. But it doesn't work that way. You have to be able to find another job because unemployment benefits rarely if ever are granted to employees that quit just because they're being abused by the company. It's a tough shit situation which most people can't afford to do.
But then again, I'm sure it's their fault for not having been born rich and that you're just such a hard worker that you've earned everything you've got. Including the good luck not to get seriously ill.
Because Larry Ellison wasn't available to personally menace that many people?
Which will happen eventually, the lulz from such an endeavor is just way too great for all trolls throughout the entire world to resist. It's pretty much a given that at least one will do so. And probably enough to make the site pointless.
This strikes me as something better solved on the client end than on the internet end. If somebody feels that strongly about it, they shouldn't be depending upon Google or somebody else to know what's appropriate for their children. I get that it's time consuming to constantly baby sit kids, but you don't have to. When I was a kid, we were turned loose with a bunch of other kids and that handled much of the time. Society hasn't gotten any more dangerous in the last 30 years, despite the opinions that some folks have, and the reality is that kids are probably safer roving the parks in packs than hanging out with adult friends and loved ones anyways.
But, if you really want to do it right, you're stuck with a filter that defaults to deny and uses an internal DNS cache to resolve things, blocking any efforts to type IP addresses directly. And where the parent manually adds sites to the list. Even that's not fool proof, but it's probably about as fool proof as being physically present whilst they surf.
The books are still DRM encumbered, that's the part that the publishers care about. It's not going to be a problem unless a huge portion of the Nook owning public are no longer able to use the DRM files without cracking them.
The main reason why they aren't using E-ink for the color screens is that the technology isn't there yet. I'm not sure if you remember the original Gameboy Color, but the color was really bad compared with the Gameboy Advanced which took its place. It's unlikely that LCD screens will ever be as efficient as E-Ink is.
This, I considered getting a Kindle when I got my Nook. The hardware in both cases is quite good, the screens are manufactured by the same company and most areas are more or less identical. The two things that pushed me over to Nook were epub support and the microSD slot. Well, that and I can change the battery without much hassle.
I suspect that what's going on here is that B&N makes a small profit on each Nook it sells. And it would be somewhat anathema to release an ebook reader that's not tied to a specific store and then lock the thing down from such hacks. The only thing I can think of them wanting to protect is the cell connection, and even that isn't a big deal because if you use it to access sites other than their store, they just bill you for the overage.
It's hard to really say, but this is probably part of their, "we're not evil like Amazon" thing they're doing.
I doubt that B&N cares one way or the other about people hacking their hardware. Considering that Nooks aren't locked into their store specifically, I have to assume that they make at least some profit off the sale of Nooks, even if the profit is minimal.
Which has precisely what to do with the accusation that the US is arming and funding the narcomafia? His point failed miserably because he's wrong and hasn't been able to substantiate that in this case we're funding or arming the narcomafia.
Considering that you didn't read any of those links, I think it's somewhat ironic that you're calling me an idiot.
The first 3 are about past actions, which have no relevant connection to your claims. The last one is ongoing, but it has no connection to your claim that the US government is funding or arming the narcomafia.
I used to buy into that fairytale as well, but it's not true. There is no correlation between inflation and economic health beyond the number being relatively stable. Modest inflation or deflation is a tolerable evil, but one is not better than the other and certainly neither is more desirable than being rid of both completely. You're not going to do that with a fiat currency ever, a fiat currency will tend towards a small amount of inflation.
Inflation itself has been the means of stealing from the poor to give to the rich. In the US we've had insufferably low interest rates on the types of accounts that the poor can afford to have, whereas we've had insufferably low taxes on capital gains for the rich. Leading to a perverse situation where the banks are taking the money from the poor and paying it out as dividends and capital gains to the rich.
If you really want to encourage investment or savings in savings accounts over currency hoarding, then there are better ways to do that. Such as preventing the federal reserve from giving low interest loans during boom times. People are going to spend when interest rates are lower than inflation and they haven't got enough money to properly invest. I'm not sure what other result one would expect. If you want interest rates to be low, then you pretty much have to eliminate inflation, and possibly even start destroying currency to bring yourself into a situation where that interest rate is somewhat higher than inflation.
Which it won't. The main purposes of Bitcoins at the moment are scamming and money laundering. I'd be surprised if there weren't already a few governments investigating the legality of the whole thing as I type. Especially given the utility it has in buying illegal goods and or services.
It's because nobody is that old, the original ones being issued near the end of the 18th century. So, unless you're very long lived, the actual loss of purchasing power over that period isn't a big deal. Up until relatively recently wages would go up by a similar figure, and typically somewhat more than inflation as increases to productivity would take effect. The dollar itself is just a place holder, the only reason to care about inflation at all is if you're the type of person that's in the position to hold onto dollars.
The bigger problem lately has been the inflation created to cut no interest loans to corporations that are then subsidized to create jobs over seas via IRS loopholes. Inflation or deflation of a currency, what matters a lot more is whether the ecomony is growing, shrinking or remaining relatively static. You can create an inflationary or deflationary period trivially by printing or destroying currency in massive quantities.
It's great for money laundering.
To varying degrees. US currency is legal tender for all debts public and private, well within the US, so as long as you have the bills to pay the debt they have to accept it no matter what the ultimate outcome might be, even if they would make more money requiring a different form of payment. But, you can still see massive inflation when the Fed decides that the rich aren't rich enough and starts printing money to give the rich interest free loans.
You don't think that they can get their hands on run flat tires? Sure they're hardly prefect, but they do pretty well in terms of coping with that situation.
No, the problem is that people are willing to pay and look the other way when it comes to the consequences. Ending prohibition set a really bad precedent in that it gave people the idea that if they refuse to obey the law that they can get it over turned. Now that wasn't such a bad thing when it came to human rights, but alcohol is still a very serious social problem, killing and hurting more than pretty much anything else. But, it's going to be legalized perpetually because people are more OK giving their money to the mob than giving up the hooch.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp that there are people out there that don't give a damn what their drug habit is doing to the people in Mexico. What's difficult to grasp is that if we bow to the pressure that things will be OK and that they won't start demanding other anti-social things. There's a reason why the constitution doesn't include the right to do whatever drug you might want to do.
A large part of it is the continued turf war as the Mexican government makes progress in various areas. The Mexican government hasn't been able to make enough head way to keep it that way, but they have managed to do well enough that the gangs are fighting amongst themselves as they lose, usually temporarily, some portion of their turf.
The James bond gear is primarily for use against each other though.
This is similar to what Columbia went through when they were cleaning themselves up after years of being owned by the narcomafia. And ultimately, Mexico is primarily about smuggling routes, in order to fix it they'll also have to ensure that there's little demand to move things through the country. I can definitely envision the traffickers bypassing them mostly to go via sea in those subs.
Your tinfoil hat must be cutting off circulation to your head. The government wasn't smuggling guns for the cartels, they were engaged in a sting. A poorly conceived of and executed sting, but a sting no less. It's just plain dishonest to suggest that the US is funding and arming them.
Yes, they are making most of their money here and they are using that money to pay people to buy them weapons, but you make it sound like there's some sort of conspiracy going on. Whereas what's really going on is typical of organized crime and requires no additional paranoia to explain.
Apple manufacturers very little themselves, they contract out to folks like Foxconn for the actual manufacturing. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with contracting out the actual manufacturing, I just think that it's important to keep in mind that the contractors hardly work just for Apple.
The problem I have with Thunderbird is the frequent freezing of scripts. It's good for them to work on cutting down the RAM consumption, but I do think it's a good idea to keep in mind the context in which this is all taking place.
This is a much bigger problem in my experience. I know that they are working on that, but it seems to be taking ages. I do appreciate the effort that's going into the tab isolation, but until they do that, this sort of problem is going to persist.
Firefox doesn't have a memory leak. Or at least none of any note. I'm curious how you're managing to use 2.1gb of RAM, I have yet to see my copy on Windows, Linux or FreeBSD manage that. I rarely if ever see the browser use more than 300MB.
It definitely could happen, but I'd want some indication that it's the browser itself and not the typical assortment of plug ins.
Are they though? I keep hearing anecdotally that people are switching in droves from Firefox to Chrome, but considering most of it is due to things like memory use and speed, I can't help but think that the numbers are exaggerated. For one thing Firefox has been using less RAM than the competition for quite some time now. And for another thing, Firefox, unlike many of the competitors, chrome I'm looking at you, is actually a full featured browser which is relatively stable. There's not a lot of cruft being added, I can't say the same for some of the more minimalist browsers out there.